Cut-off under dam

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. | www.geo-slope.com

1200, 700 - 6th Ave SW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 0T8
Main: +1 403 269 2002 | Fax: +1 888 463 2239

Introduction
Many geotechnical engineering problems include the flow of water around a cut-off, which is
installed to reduce the up-lift pressure on the dam and reduce the possibility of internal erosion
along the soil-structure contact. This example will illustrate the ability of SEEP/W to simulate the
flow regime of a soil, where a cut-off exists below the upstream side of an embankment.

Numerical Simulation
Figure 1 shows the problem configuration, where an embankment is used to retain water on the left
side of the domain. Water can seep into the ground from the reservoir retained on the left and
eventually exit on the ground surface beyond the downstream toe.

The cut-off is modeled using interface elements, as shown in Figure 2. Interface elements are
created with the Draw Mesh Properties command. Both the ‘Generate mesh along line’ option and
the ‘Generate interface elements’ option must be selected. The thickness of the interface elements is
set to 1m, but is arbitrary in this case. Material properties can be assigned to interface elements the
same as ordinary elements. Materials are assigned by clicking near the Line on both sides.

As this is a steady-state analysis and the soil will remain saturated, the Saturated Only material model
is used. For this example, the soil is considered to be isotropic and homogenous, with a saturated
hydraulic conductivity of 0.001 ft/sec (≈ 3 x 10-2 cm/sec).

The intention in this example is to prevent water from seeping through the cut-off; that is, it is
perfectly impermeable to water flow. In SEEP/W, this can be achieved by assigning a material to the
interface elements with a Material Model set to ‘none’ (Figure 3).

1
Figure 1. Problem configuration.

Figure 2. Interface elements used to represent cut-off.

Figure 3. Material model for perfectly impermeable flow.

2
Setting the Material Model to ‘none’ is a flag in the computer code to treat these elements as
missing. Physically, a missing element is analogous to a perfectly impermeable element (if the
element is not present, no flow can cross the element).

When the mesh is displayed, elements with a Material Model set to ‘none’ are shown as light grey.
When the mesh is not displayed the selected material color is shown (compare Figure 1 with Figure
2).

A total head boundary condition of 60 ft was applied to the surface of the soil under the reservoir to
represent a pressure head of 20 ft. The soil surface on the downstream side of the embankment was
given a boundary condition of total head equals 40 ft so that the surface remains saturated, or the
pressure head remains at 0 ft.

Results and Discussion

Total head contours are equivalent to equipotential lines; that is, the energy potential along a
contour is constant. Figure 4 shows the resulting total head contours at 2-foot intervals.

Figure 4. Resulting total head contours and flow paths.

Flow paths were added to the solution by using the Draw Flow Paths command (Figure 4). A flow
path is a line that a droplet of water will follow from where it enters the domain to where it exits the
domain. Notice that the Flow Paths cross the equipotential lines at right angles, as in flow-net
construction. This condition only occurs if the soil is homogeneous and isotropic. The results look
like a flow net, but this is not a true flow net. The position of the flow paths was manually selected
to make it look like a flow net. In a true flow net the amount of water flow in each flow channel
must be the same. Manually, positioning the flow paths does not ensure that this is exactly true.

3
While SEEP/W does not create a technical true flow-net, combining the total head contours with flow
paths makes it possible to create a reasonable resemblance of a flow-net, which can be useful for
interpretation and presentation purposes.

The blue shading above the mesh domain in Figure 4 is a reflection of the pressure along the top
surface of the mesh. Notice the sharp drop across the cut-off. Another way of portraying the effect
of the cut-off on the pressure regime is to draw a graph along the surface of the soil under the
reservoir and embankment (Figure 5). Once again, notice the sharp pressure drop across the cut-off
at the 50-foot mark, where the cut-off is located.
Uplift pressure
1,300

1,200

1,100
Pore-Water Pressure (psf)

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

X (ft)

Figure 5. Uplift pressure at the base of the reservoir and embankment.

The amount of seepage can also be determined using a special graphing technique. Figure 6 shows
the inflow to the domain at each node along the region edge under the reservoir. The same line can
then be used to create a graph of water rate versus time (Figure 7).

0.0004

0.00035

0.0003
Water Rate (ft³/sec)

0.00025

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

5e-005
0 10 20 30 40 50

X (ft)

Figure 6. Nodal water rate values at base of reservoir.

4
 0.0004

0.00035

0.0003
Water Rate (ft³/sec)

0.00025

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

5e-005
-1 0 1

X (ft)

Figure 7. Nodal flow values versus time.

By selecting the “sum (Y) vs. Average (X)” option in the Draw Graph window (Figure 8), the resulting
water rate graph versus time window is created (Figure 9). Hovering over the data point then gives
the total inflow, which in this case is approximately 5.63x10-3 ft3/sec. This is a positive value,
signifying flow is moving into the system.

Selecting the downstream ground surface region edge gives the same value but with a negative sign
indicating flow out of the same.

Figure 8. Summation of nodal flow values.

5
 0.0062

0.006
Water Rate (ft³/sec)

0.0058

0.0056

0.0054

0.0052

0.005
-1 0 1

X (ft)

Figure 9. Total water flow into the domain under the reservoir.

Another way to view the flow regime is to look at flow vectors (Figure 10). The vectors give a sense
of direction and relative rates. The longest vectors are at the lower tip of the cut-off, indicating that
this is the point where the flow is the fastest. Another point of concentration is the right-lower
corner of the embankment. In the lower left and right corners of the domain, the vectors are so
short they are not visible at the displayed scale. This is an indication that the flow in these corners is
nearly stagnant.

Figure 10. Flow vectors added to the results window.

It is worth noting that the pore-water pressure distribution in this case is not influenced by the
hydraulic conductivity. Changing the hydraulic conductivity will not change the position of the total
head contours with all else being equal. The quantity of the seepage however will be directly
proportional to the hydraulic conductivity, even though the pressure distribution does not change.

6
This is also evident from examining the governing partial differential equation, which for steady-state
conditions is:

∂ 2ℎ ∂ 2ℎ Equation 1
𝐾𝑥 + 𝐾𝑦 =0
∂𝑥2 ∂𝑦2

where 𝐾𝑥 and 𝐾𝑦 is the hydraulic conductivity in the x- and y-direction and ℎ is the hydraulic head.
For isotropic, homogeneous conditions, 𝐾𝑥 equals 𝐾𝑦. We can then write the equation as:

∂ 2ℎ ∂ 2ℎ Equation 2
𝐾 +𝐾 =0
∂𝑥2 ∂𝑦2

Now we can divide both sides of the equation by k, and then the result is:

∂ 2ℎ ∂ 2ℎ Equation 3
+ =0
∂𝑥2 ∂𝑦2

This is the Laplacian equation, which describes the pressure distribution; it does not include the
hydraulic conductivity.

Summary and Conclusions

In this example, a steady-state water transfer analysis was developed to simulate the flow regime of
a simple cut-off under an embankment. The example highlights the use of flow paths and total head
contours to create an image that resembles a flow net. Remember, the flow paths are not flow lines.
The pore-water pressure distribution could also be replicated using a different hydraulic conductivity,
with a change in the water rates.